Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis of bariatric surgery compared with conventional medical management in Germany: a decision analytic modeling.

ABSTRACT: The objective was to evaluate cost-utility of bariatric surgery in Germany for a lifetime and 10-year horizon from a health care payer perspective.State-transition Markov model provided absolute and incremental clinical and monetary results. In the model, obese patients could undergo surgery, develop post-surgery complications, experience diabetes type II, cardiovascular diseases or die. German Quality Assurance in Bariatric Surgery Registry and literature sources provided data on clinical effectiveness and safety. The model considered three types of surgeries: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding. The model was extensively validated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate uncertainty. Cost data were obtained from German sources and presented in 2012 euros (€).Over 10 years, bariatric surgery led to the incremental cost of €2909, generated additional 0.03 years of life and 1.2 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2457 per QALY. Over a lifetime, surgery led to savings of €8522 and generated an increment of 0.7 years of life or 3.2 QALYs. The analysis also depicted an association between surgery and a reduction of obesity-related adverse events (diabetes, cardiovascular disorders). Delaying surgery for up to 3 years, resulted in a reduction of life years and QALYs gained, in addition to a moderate reduction in associated healthcare costs.Bariatric surgery is cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and may result in a substantial reduction in the financial burden on the healthcare system over the lifetime of the treated individuals. It is also observed that delays in the provision of surgery may lead to a significant loss of clinical benefits.

SUBMITTER: Borisenko O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5543597 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUltrasound guidance for central venous catheterization is a commonly used alternative to the conventional landmark method. Because from the German perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance is unclear, this study examined the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance versus the landmark method for adults undergoing a central venous catheterization.MethodsA decision-tree based model was built to estimate the costs of averted catheter-related complications. Clinical data (e.g. arterial puncture, failed attempts) were obtained from a Cochrane review and a randomized controlled trial, whilst information about cost parameters were taken from a German hospital of maximum care. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To assess the parameter uncertainty, several sensitivity analyses were performed (deterministic, probabilistic and with regard to the model structure).ResultsOur analysis revealed that ultrasound guidance resulted in fewer complications per person (0.04 versus 0.17 for the landmark method) and was less expensive (€51 versus €230 for the landmark method). Results were robust to changes in the model parameters and in the model structure. Whilst our model population reflected approximately 49% of adults undergoing a central venous catheterization cannulation per year, structural sensitivity analyses (e.g. extending the study cohort to patients at higher baseline risk of complications, pediatric patients, or using real-time/indirect catheterization) indicated the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance for a broader spectrum of patients. The results should be interpreted by considering the assumptions (e.g. target population) and approximations (e.g. cost parameters) underpinning the model.ConclusionsUltrasound guidance for central venous catheterization averts more catheter-related complications and may save the resources of the German Statutory Health Insurance compared with landmark method.

Project description:BackgroundProvision of in-centre nocturnal hemodialysis (ICNHD; 6-8 hours thrice weekly) is associated with health benefits, but the economic implications of providing this treatment are unclear.ObjectiveWe conducted a health care costing study comparing ICNHD to in-centre thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis (CvHD).DesignMicro-costing of both ICNHD and CvHD as practiced at our centre.SettingHemodialysis unit at a tertiary-care hospital in Edmonton.ParticipantsAn informal survey of 2 other Canadian ICNHD programs was conducted to inform practices that may deviate from ours to guide sensitivity analysis.MeasurementsResources consumed for each strategy were determined, and the cost of each unit (CAN $2012) was used to calculate incremental costs of ICNHD and CvHD.MethodsWe focused on resources that differ between strategies (staffing, dialysis materials, and utilities). The reference case considered 1:3 staff to patient ratio; alternate scenarios explored nursing pay grade and ratio, full care vs. self-care dialysis (including training costs), and medication costs.ResultsIn the reference case, ICNHD was $61 more costly per dialysis treatment compared with CvHD ($9,538 per patient per year). Incremental annual costs for staffing, dialysis materials, and utilities were $8,201, $1,193, and $144, respectively. If ICNHD reduces medication use (anti-hypertensives, bone mineral metabolism medications), the incremental cost of ICNHD decreases to $8,620 per patient per year. In a scenario of self-care ICNHD utilizing a staff-to-patient ratio of 1:10, ICNHD is more costly in year 1 ($15,196), but results in cost savings of $2,625 in subsequent years compared with CvHD.LimitationsThe findings of this cost analysis may not be generalizable to other health care systems, including other parts of Canada.ConclusionsCompared to CvHD, provision of ICNHD is more expensive, largely driven by increased staffing costs as patients dialyze longer. Alternate staffing models, including self-care ICNHD with minimal staff, may lead to net cost savings. The incremental cost of treatment should be considered in the context of impact on patient health outcomes, staffing model, and pragmatic factors, such as current capacity for daytime CvHD and the capital costs of new dialysis stations.

Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis of bariatric surgery compared with conventional medical management in Germany: a decision analytic modeling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets